Safety Matters

[Witton Park]

Keith ,

Your assertion is wrong. The FRA has never claimed this. It would not be true.

What is correct is that SHR (along with WFRA, NIMRA, BOFRA, etc), were sent copies of various drafts of the FRA Safety Requirements during 2013 through, at the time, Bruce Smith.

Given that WFRA and SHR are independent organisations of UKA/FRA the matter of "endorsement" would not arise and, as we both know, the FRA and SHR Handbooks have been different for some time .

Graham

Really - did the FRA not advise the Coroner that The Safety Requirements for Fell Races and Rules for Competition

• Will be adopted by the other 6 Home Nation bodies
• That those 6 bodies had been consulted
• That those 6 bodies saw the FRA as the leader in the sport.
• That those 6 bodies welcomed the new document

So either the Coroner was mislead, as he was advised of this unanimous endorsement following a consultation process.

or

We are now being mislead as you say only copies of the drafts were sent out and endorsement was never claimed.

[Graham Breeze]

Belfield Inquest

The Belfield Inquest was held in September 2013.

The FRA model has formed the base for the independent WFRA and SHR safety requirements (and obviously the 3 other UKA Associations and BOFRA races registered with the FRA) and it still does.

It is now April 2014 and things have moved on in England.

In Scotland SHR are still using their own version of the 2013 FRA model. The FRA Committee does not know what SHR will change, if anything, but the Belfield Coroner is aware that SHR may not adopt (or adapt) the FRA 2014 model. He has expressed his written opinion that SHR should consider the consequences of his Regulation 28 letter to the FRA but he recognises that fell running in Scotland is outside the jurisdiction of HM Coroners for England.

The FRA has never claimed that SHR or any other fell running body "endorsed" the FRA model but it has suggested that the FRA is the leader in the sport (ie massively bigger membership, number of races, source of most documentation etc) and that it consulted the other fell running bodies when it revised its documentation.

It remains to be seen whether or not SHR will adopt or adapt the FRA 2014 model or continue to use the model based on the old FRA model or start afresh: but that is for them to decide for fell races they register. However whatever they decide will not affect the relationship between the Belfield Coroner and the FRA.

Graham Breeze

[Witton Park]

Graham your playing with words and avoiding answering the question.

Let's simplify it instead of expecting you to answer a question.

1. The Directors of the FRA advised the coroner that The Safety Requirements for Fell Races and Rules for Competition 2014 was welcomed by the other six home countries fell running associations?

2. The Directors of the FRA also advised the Coroner that these other six bodies were going to adopt the new document as their own standard?

That might not be of much significance to some on the forum, but it just underlines to me how underhand and political the FRA committee in some parts has become when you have clearly claimed a universal,cross nation position to a Coroner and you are now trying to distance yourself from any such claim.

The rest of the committee know. So they are all culpable, or gullable perhaps.

[Stick]

The rest of the committee know. So they are all culpable, or gullable perhaps.

Or it's a reflection of their naivety, or their level of competence WP. Any which way, it looks a very bad state of affairs.

What I find quite remarkable is the almost unanimous silence from the rest of the officers/committee. So either Graham is the most successful manipulator I've ever met (sorry Graham, not even close, my ex can beat you hands down!) or the rest of the Officers of the Company and committee are out of their depth and are quite happy for Graham to decide the path and take the responsibility and brickbats accordingly. Naivety on their own accountabilities within the FRA Ltd. I suspect.

(Last time I checked Graham's role, his was not that of an Officer of the company, but one of the 4 Club reps...)

Where is the leadership of the FRA? Would the previous chairs of Mike Rose, Alan Barlow or Graham Breeze have stood by silently...? Would their committees have become so dysfunctional...? Anyway, this I acknowledge before the committee dogs are set on me is now no longer a matter of my concern...

[CL]

You've been around long enough Chris. Much longer than me.

Nine Standards - Jan 1st - Course Record 51:44 is a BM so no mandatory kit requirement set by the FRA.

Ingleborough - July 19th - Course Record 44:15 is an AM so mandatory kit of Full Waterproof body cover, map,compass whistle required.

Of the 2 races, I know which as a competitor I would chose to take the full kit to and a little extra and that is Nine Standards.

If the rules are stupid, and illogical, then people will disrespect them.

I'm sure the 9 standards RO will apply the mandatory kit even though not compelled to and that's what makes these rules so stupid.

The rules are generalisations. In most cat A races you'd expect the conditions to be more variable than cat Bs even though there may be exceptions as you pointed out. And if the Cat B race is ran under bad conditions then the rules take account of that.

The reason we don't allow 14, 15 or 16 years olds to drive cars on roads is because the majority haven't got the maturity to do it safely. That doesn't mean there aren't a few exceptions who could manage it but unfortunately we have to have a clean sweep based on what is to be expected.

The problem I have with AI's position is his insistence on the competitor taking responsibility whilst writing up rules that remove it. Yesterday a Man was DQ from the AW because he decided, based on the conditions that carrying water was of more value to him than taking a pair of bottoms. He was doing the very thing AI keeps ranting on about I.e. taking responsibility for himself. And of course AI would say he was DQ because carrying kit is a requirement of the rules and isn't there for safety. Well why make a rule to carry something just for the sake of it? Doesn't sound right and of course it isn't. Action without reason in an attempt to disguise one's motives which are at all costs to protect ROs.

[Witton Park]

The problem I have with AI's position is his insistence on the competitor taking responsibility whilst writing up rules that remove it. Yesterday a Man was DQ from the AW because he decided, based on the conditions that carrying water was of more value to him than taking a pair of bottoms. He was doing the very thing AI keeps ranting on about I.e. taking responsibility for himself. And of course AI would say he was DQ because carrying kit is a requirement of the rules and isn't there for safety. Well why make a rule to carry something just for the sake of it? Doesn't sound right and of course it isn't. Action without reason in an attempt to disguise one's motives which are at all costs to protect ROs.

I agree on AW as it happens. But Wynn moved from the FRA partly due to the new Safety Requirements and partly due to the manner in which she was dealt with when she raised concerns.
One option was SHR who have't completed their review yet of their RO pack yet, so taking that option meant mandatory kit.
But 5 different ROs at AW might set 5 different kit requirements - and some may ask for water.

Ultimately an RO should declare mandatory kit if they feel it is the right thing to do. The personal responsibility part is to abide by the rules that have been set for the event.

[alwaysinjured]

The rules are generalisations. In most cat A races you'd expect the conditions to be more variable than cat Bs even though there may be exceptions as you pointed out. And if the Cat B race is ran under bad conditions then the rules take account of that.

The reason we don't allow 14, 15 or 16 years olds to drive cars on roads is because the majority haven't got the maturity to do it safely. That doesn't mean there aren't a few exceptions who could manage it but unfortunately we have to have a clean sweep based on what is to be expected.

The problem I have with AI's position is his insistence on the competitor taking responsibility whilst writing up rules that remove it. Yesterday a Man was DQ from the AW because he decided, based on the conditions that carrying water was of more value to him than taking a pair of bottoms. He was doing the very thing AI keeps ranting on about I.e. taking responsibility for himself. And of course AI would say he was DQ because carrying kit is a requirement of the rules and isn't there for safety. Well why make a rule to carry something just for the sake of it? Doesn't sound right and of course it isn't. Action without reason in an attempt to disguise one's motives which are at all costs to protect ROs.

As I stated - Trying to tread a fine line between appropriate entry instructions, and not actually contradicting the rules of the insuring body (as inherited from FRA) and under amendment. I have to deal with the world as it is. Not as it should be.

A prime reason the waltz withdrew from FRA control was not only incompetent rule drafting , including statements of voiding of insurance, it was the disgraceful way Wynn was treated by FRA leaders subsequently for raising valid objections. No longer worthy of anyone's trust. Take Watson saying she was "deluded" and Breeze calling her "recalictrant" for not wanting to sign idiotic undertakings on paper. The first thing we need as criteria for being an RO is responsible people. And signing up for impossible undertakings (as they most certainly were at the time), is not responsible behaviour. It was loss of trust in the people that run FRA.

There is not much to choose between the rule books as they stand until SHR amend them, but there is a big chasm in attitude. SHR think they are there to serve the fell running community. FRA (or at least the leaders) think they are there to laud it over everyone. The word "permit" says it all...

However the prime rule and essential for every competitor was indeed broken - that is - deliberately breaking RO instructions.

In my proposed documentation, there are in essence only two rules.
(i) That RO write an event plan according to guidelines (which guidelines state that the plan should contain pullout documents for entry instructions and race day instructions) And that they follow that plan on raceday , and review it afterwards.
(ii) That the competitor obeys all instructions from the RO or his officials. (which by definition includes entry instructions and race day instructions)

So this guy does not belong in any fell race, anywhere ,ever. He is a liability.
He broke the only rule of the sport in my book. Deliberately disobeying the RO, his instructions or his officials.

If the RO wants to specify minimum kit, I have nothing against it: it is probably even sensible to cope with idiots who lie on the entry forms about having experience they do not have, or start races in conditions of which they do not have enough experience, and so protecting them from themselves. In this instance SHR rules demand the carrying of it, so it was a not a decision of wynn's.

That is.. Provided the competitor is told specifically in race day instructions to take a proactive decision - that is to assess for him or herself whatever else in addition to the minimum he needs to stay safe on the basis of experience (which is mandated) and prevailing and expected conditions in expectation of no support and a long wait for rescue. It is that act of assessment that keeps the runner responsible (and safer)

On your last point CL - you betcha - A PRIME reason for all the documentation and a lot of the wording used is to keep the RO out of problems. Do you have a problem with that?

[Stagger]

However the prime rule for every competitor was broken - that is - deliberately breaking RO instructions
So this guy does not belong in any fell race, anywhere ,ever. He is a liability.

Thats the key line.

Surely, when you enter you are agreeing to abide by the rules that the RO stipulates.

If you wish you carry extra for your own safety and well-being then thats the competitors choice.

I shared a joke with the Kit check marshal because of the weight of my bum bag. I had all mandatory kit + 750ml of fluid and 4 gels + bandage and small first aid kit.

2hr 41mins later I returned in a fine but tired state from a most enjoyable outing on a beautiful day in a special place. (better safe than sorry)

[Witton Park]

Thats the key line.

Surely, when you enter you are agreeing to abide by the rules that the RO stipulates.

If you wish you carry extra for your own safety and well-being then thats the competitors choice.

I shared a joke with the Kit check marshal because of the weight of my bum bag. I had all mandatory kit + 750ml of fluid and 4 gels + bandage and small first aid kit.

2hr 41mins later I returned in a fine but tired state from a most enjoyable outing on a beautiful day in a special place. (better safe than sorry)

I'm like you Trev, especially if I'm likely to be out for over 2 hours. I've taken a packed lunch before with Ham Sandwich, Pepperami and mixed nuts

I just hope you are a trained first aider though, as in the event of a twisted ankle, had you applied the bandage incorrectly, you could have risked a lawsuit from yourself

[DazTheSlug]

correct me if I'm wrong, but is not windproof full body cover MANDATORY full stop. for AL, AM and BL races, so it's not even up to the RO irrespective of the weather?